They Decourt has several ways to decide this case. From a very broad -- being. -- conclusion with respect for the rights of our citizens in this country. To a narrower ruling that would be limited basically to California. The court never gives you an idea how they're going to decided they didn't today. They've obviously read the briefs they care about the issues. And then we'll see what the court decides we'll answers that David and -- -- some more questions. But I want everyone to hear from. The individuals about four home this case is about the real people. Sandy and Chris and Jeff and Paul will -- just. Everyone's hero right from the beginning these -- and we're just in love with -- and we're so. I'm humbled by the fact that we get to speak for them in the United States Supreme Court wanna go first. I'm Chris Perry plaintiff in that case just heard of the Supreme Court. In this country. As children we learned that there is a founding principle that old men and women are created equal. And we want this equality because this is -- founding principal. And fortunately with the passage of proposition eight. We learned that there -- group of people in California who are not being treated equally and that was recognized by a federal court and the ninth Circuit Court. We look forward to a today. When proposition eight is finally and officially eliminated inequality is restored to the state of California. -- -- any sphere and I like all Americans Eileen inequality. I possibly even in our judicial system I have great faith the next but more than anything I believe in love. And proposition eight. It's a discriminatory law that hurts people it hurts gays and lesbians in California and -- it showed Miller raising it does so for no good reason. It is our hope. That we can -- flowered. And remove -- harm from society so -- gays and lesbians in California -- go back to their lives. Living equally alongside their neighbors with the same rights and protections as everyone else thank you all very much. Hi my name is Paul Khatami and done for me from the beginning this case is -- -- About securing the right to marry the person that I loved. And also having the equal access to the most important relationship that I know in life and that's marriage. So I simply look forward to the day we're I can be -- the present -- start a family electors and sandy have. It's as simple as that -- constitutional right and it cannot wait to start with them their jobs. Hello I'm Jeff Cirillo. We are so pleased to have had this opportunity to present our case -- the United States Supreme Court today. It's been the culmination of a long and amazing journey and we are so thankful. For Ted Olson. And David -- -- Really looking forward to the court's decision thank you. Now see any and I would like to introduce you to our sons two of our sons Spencer -- Elliot Perry. Hello my name is Spencer Perry -- my twin brother Elliot Perry and we're -- -- christened -- very very proud sons. On behalf of myself and my twin brother and I just want to say how. Incredibly proud we are our parents we love them. We love our families and we look forward to the day -- we'll be treated equally. Just like our neighbors friends think you so much. David -- we will -- -- answer some questions but I I've. It's very important to introduce Chad Griffin. Is the chairman -- president of Human Rights Campaign. Who's been with this case right from the beginning. Right from the very very start. He recruited me. And together we recruited David Boies. 22. Handle this case it's been almost four years since we filed the case. It's been four and a half years since we first met. And started talking about what we would do in this case. Chad Griffin. I cannot say enough wonderful things about Chad Griffin and everything he's done for the rights of gay and lesbian citizens in this country. And what the American foundation for equal rights the foundation which is supported this campaign and Human Rights Campaign have done. For equal rights for gay and lesbian citizens to -- Thank you so much -- from all I can do is to once again thank Ted and David who. Enabled us to lift the partisan bail from which this issue has so often times been discussed and -- the first time shine the spotlight. On the human faces -- human faces of suffering. And Cranston sandy and -- Jeff. And Chris -- Sandy's voice to be able to look them in the face and tell them that they and their family deserve. Any thing other. And equality under the law is something that I challenged anyone to do. And so we're just honored that our court system has worked and we have gone from. The district court in northern California over these four years all the way here to Washington today before the United States Supreme Court. And we are all cautiously optimistic as we wait and see what this court -- do thank you very much. If you have any questions about other -- college -- -- is going to again. Four -- through a -- that the petitioners don't have standing that would be a win -- -- would it not yes about yes. I looked at the mention briefly NN David -- there's four ways in which -- succeed in this case. Because the state of California decided that proposition eight was unconstitutional. And although they were in force in it they quit defending it wants the district judge ruled that it was unconstitutional. Then you have the argument that no one could have appealed this case and the proponents who were in court today. Who who were the authors of the measure didn't have the right to carry it forward if that's the case. The district court decision finding proposition eight unconstitutional. Stands and -- and that governor and the officials of California would be enjoined from enforcing it that would be the end of proposition eight. Or that ninth circuit decided that because of the circumstances in California. Proposition eight was unconstitutional. Because of those circumstances in California. A third way is that there are many states who have acknowledged the rights of gay and lesbians to raise children. And a live together in households the court could decide that that structure is unconstitutional because. California in those states have admitted. That gay and lesbian individuals can live together and have families and raise children. And they don't have any defense on that and finally the broadest argument that we made is that it's just wrong. It is not consistent with the ideals and the laws and the constitution of this country. To take our gay and lesbian Brothers and sisters and put them in a class and deny them rights that we give to everyone else. That's the broadest possible outcome and any one of those four outcomes would be a success in terms of overturning prop. And it seemed like they -- -- and you both obviously your -- veterans of the but then -- got the impression they didn't find an argument anywhere that they were. -- I don't think you can read that much in question I think what you were doing as they were trying to probe both sides in terms. Arguments they did have these falch. And so I think the questions jumped around found. As they tried to evaluate each of those alternatives and I think trying to. They too much -- those questions is really risky proposition. Not develop -- that the united different. They didn't look at the there in front of them. They were very very reluctant to look at the broader issue whether -- constitutional. No -- I I think there were a number of questions about. The broad issues. I think that a member of the questions went directly. -- weather and audited you want right. I just fifty state -- And I think I don't even read much into either of those approaches but I think there are exploring. Every one of the four different alternatives. My understanding that you give betterment of this that they seem incredibly energized the Rangers did it's not excited about these things -- Describe it. Well -- of the Supreme Court. Is a marvelous institution today hear the cases that the people bring to them. And and their lawyers get to stand in front of the justices anybody who has that courtroom. Good realize that we're standing and with the -- twelve feet of the justices. They are dealing with the issues they are asking hard questions they're listing to the answers and then they will write an opinion that explains their decision the Supreme Court. Is a marvelous institution and they don't miss the opportunity. Win an argument is presented to them to ask penetrating hard questions the questions may not even reveal how their thinking but they want to know. The answers to those questions so they put every advocate to the chest so to speak in the American people will be able to see how this works I want to say. One thing about. David and -- -- coming together for this case we come from different perspectives in the on the political spectrum so to speak. The are coming together is intended to make the point to America that this is not. A democratic issue or Republican issue or conservative or liberal. This is -- issue of American. Constitutional rights and that everyone in this country. Should agree on the things that we've been talking about we treat our citizens with equal -- with the quality -- dignity with fairness. The equal protection of the laws is the protection of equal laws and David and I are trying to. Make that point that it is not something that's partisan or anything like that it's about American values. Thank you. This is this is. -- terms of the outcome of this case the question was whether this is a landmark -- will be a landmark case. It is so valuable. There's so many of our citizens to be treated equally and with dignity and as David said it's one of -- major may be the major. Final civil rights battle that were fighting in this country. And it is so important. To our values as Americans. That it be decided in the right way. Thank you very. --

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

{"id":18814888,"title":"Plaintiffs in SCOTUS Gay Marriage Case Discuss Oral Arguments","duration":"11:25","description":"Citizens who brought case into U.S. legal system speak out on their big day inside the Supreme Court","section":"Politics","mediaType":"Default"}